Abhy_4us - The Panasonic FX150 was a 2008 'flat-box' body shape, small-sensor, fixed-lens P&S camera with 4x-Zoom, which had 640 x 480 video. It would not compete at all well with late-2011 midrange P&S cameras like the Canon S95 or Nikon S9100.

It has fast Continuous shooting at 12fps / saves up to 12 images. It does Full and Std HD Video, plus VGA.

That is - it's a long-zoom P&S Bridge Camera - not a DSLR - which is being Reviewed as having much better IQ than the preceding FZ100.

The best Review of the FZ150 is on this site - click 'Reviews' at top left - the FZ150 is top of the middle column - I've been studying it myself....

The Nikon D3100 is an Entry-Level DSLR. Here in Sydney, body only, it's AUD$642.00 (The AUD is about the same as the USD at present)

To get anywhere near the FZ150's "zoom-range" you'd need the 2-lens kit, with the 18-55mm VR and 55-300mm VR. (VR is Nikon's 'anti-shake'.) Here that would cost you $979.00 - close to twice your USD$500.00 budget...

But with more controls and functions, 12+ times the sensor size, and Nikon's very good, even at kit-level, lenses - over the FZ150 - that is likely "the better option" - though you'd need to stretch your budget, even with lower prices in the US, and decide - do you want changeable lenses, and a delicate sensor to keep clean - or the convenience, if somewhat lower IQ, of what seems to be a very nice FZ150 Bridge Zoom...?

I'd go for the D3100 personally, a DSLR will beat the quality of a point and shoot camera handsdown, anyday. It will give you better performance in low light, the lenses will generally be sharper and you'll be able to swap them around to get something more suitable for what you;re shooting. Ex: A wide angle lens for landscapes, a dedicated macro lens for closeups, etc. Even the most basic DSLRs like the Nikon D3100 are far better than a point and shoot camera like the Panasonic that you mentioned.

The only major advantage that the Panasonic has in this case would be the extended zoom range; if you want to be able to shoot subjects from far away without having to purchase separate telephoto lenses, the Panasonic may be a better choice for you as you won't have to invest in something like a 55-300mm zoom lens, but a DSLR still would give you better quality, and more control over your images.

Evan - Obviously you're beyond question on the IQ point... I say as much in my previous last para.

However, it "can" depend on what the User needs to do. As an example, I've had 3 Bridge-Zooms in the last 4 years, and of course was working up to learning enough to use a DSLR.

As I'm on limited (disability) income, I aimed for Pentax - not because Canon and Nikon don't have much larger 'modern' lens lineups - they do, but because Pentax's current K-mount can use a plethora of lenses, K-mount and M42, going back half a century - with some excellent and affordable optics in the mix, albeit most of those being manual.

Before I bought a DSLR I already had some lenses - some given to me by my landlord, and a couple of more modern AF Sigmas bought on our local auction site.

So for "learning-in" I bought a very low-count K200D on another forum - and proceded to have a lot of "educational" fun!

My "50-size" is actually a Takumar SMC 55mm f/1.8 - the best of that series - and once I found out how it worked with the camera - found that, closeup to landscapes - it just "IQ slaughtered" anything a Bridge Zoom can do... And the Super Tak 135mm f/2.5 (yes - took me a week to get into that - the manual primes certainly make you work for your hobby!) - just left me gasping "IQ" - and in that case it certainly WAS the "hardware" - as I'm, er, a Bridgey-aimer - nowhere near being a "proper photographer"....!

Even the not-too-good Sigma 28-80mm is a "usable" walk-around lens - and if the 100-300mm 4.5-8.7 DL is "the worst zoom Sigma ever made" - it just "beats the tripes" out of any of the 3 Bridgeys at the 300mm range... Lotsa-fun, even if no 'wondrous' results...

But... I also found that when I went out - in the carry-bag, or backpack along with the tripod - I'd have one - or even two - bridge cameras... A K200D doesn't do video - the HS10 does Full and Std HD, and 5 levels of slow-motion - it does 12fps to the K200's 2.8 - and the "equiv 720mm" reach is there - even if great IQ isn't...

And without a proper Macro lens - the Canon SX10 beats both of the others for "at lens-distance" macros. It's also a "far less intrusive-obvious" in the street snaps camera.

I think, when sorted out - if ever - it'll be a "which camera to take" thing - but there's one thing becoming clearer - just "having a DSLR" - doesn't "solve all and cover everything".

A friend does have a beautiful Nikon D90 - and that really is a lovely camera to hold and balance. He has the Nikon 50 prime, the 18-55 kit, and the 70-300mm VR (which murders my poor old Sigma 100-300 - WOW!) - but... And it's a very big "BUT" - that doesn't "do everything" either - nor is waving-around a real Nikon D90 exactly "unobtrusive" in busy places...! So - in the end-pocket of his bag lives a Canon S95 - and it even does Macro...

So - really - the OP, Abhy - is asking more questions than at first apparent...

I think - as a "learning into" more modern cameras, in their case - and having studied Gordon's Review of it closely - I'd go for the FZ150 - but learn the "exposure triangle" - and get used to using Shutter and Aperture Priority - maybe Manual and MF on a tripod - as a "stage" before getting a DSLR. And because it "does different things" - it'd still be useful for years, alongside whichever DSLR they buy next year...